coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is remanded in custody in Diyarbakır prison.
5.  On 12 October 1998 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of Hizbullah, an illegal organisation.
6.  On 19 October 1998 a single judge at the Batman Magistrates’ Court remanded him in custody.
7.  On 11 November 1998 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and three other persons. The applicant was charged with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, an offence proscribed by Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code. According to the information in the case file, the proceedings against the applicant are still pending at first instance, which is now the Diyarbakır Assize Court, and the applicant remains in detention on remand.
8.  During the proceedings, the first-instance courts have examined the applicant’s continued detention at the end of every hearing, either on their own motion or at the applicant’s request. The courts ordered the applicant’s continued detention, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the content of the file on each occasion.
7.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Nicosia.
8.  The applicant used to live with his family in Trypimeni, a village in the District of Famagusta. During the 1974 military intervention Turkish military troops evicted the applicant and his family from their home and forced them to leave Famagusta and flee to the south. Since 1974 both Famagusta and Trypimeni have been under Turkish military control.
9.  The applicant claimed to be the owner of a garden with twenty fruit‑bearing apricot trees in Trypimeni village. The property, registered on 25 January 1967 in the name of the applicant under the number 472, had an area of 920 sq. m. According to the researches conducted by an expert appointed by the applicant in the Famagusta land register, the property at issue bore the plot number 185 on sheet/plan 13/32. In support of his claim of ownership, the applicant submitted a cadastral plan on which his property was marked in yellow.
10.  On 9 December 1990 the applicant made an attempt to return to his home and property in Famagusta and Trypimeni by participating in a convoy of cars of fellow refugees wishing to return home during a peaceful march towards their villages.
11.  The applicant and his fellow refugees, who had informed the Commander of the United Nations (UN) forces in Cyprus of their intention, stopped at the checkpoint in the "buffer zone" on the main road linking Nicosia and Famagusta. There, they asked the UN officer on duty to be allowed to return to their homes, properties and villages. They requested him to transmit their demand to the Turkish military authorities. The officer announced that the Turkish military authorities had refused the refugees’ request to drive through the checkpoint and enter the Turkish-controlled part of Cyprus.
8.  The applicant was born in 1904 and lives in Nicosia.
9.  The applicant claimed that until 1974 he had lived with his family (composed of his wife, two of his sons, his married daughter, her husband and her two children) in a house which belonged to him in Trypimeni, a village in the District of Famagusta.
10.  The applicant produced a copy of the original title deed, dated 3 February 1936. According to this document, the house at issue originally consisted of two rooms at ground level, one room on the upper floor, two verandas, one stable, one village oven and a yard with trees. It was registered under registration number 5299, sheet/plan 13/40, plot no. 165. The area of the applicant’s land was 377 sq. m. According to an affidavit signed by the applicant’s son, three additional rooms (one downstairs and one upstairs) had been built prior to July 1974. The house had an overall inside area of approximately 200 sq. m.
11.  In July 1974, according to the applicant, he had been forced to leave Famagusta and flee to the area still controlled by the Cypriot Government.
12.  Since 1974 the applicant had been unable to return to his home and property in the northern part of Cyprus. On 9 December 1990 he took part in a car convoy organised by persons from three villages in Kyrenia and from Trypimeni wishing to return to their homes in the north peacefully. The participants in the convoy had informed the commander of the United Nations (UN) forces in Cyprus of their intention to return home. They drove to the “buffer zone” checkpoint on the main road linking Nicosia and Famagusta. There they stopped and asked the UN officer on duty to be allowed to return to their homes, property and villages. They requested him to transmit their demand to the Turkish military authorities. The UN officer announced to the applicant and the other participants in the convoy that their request to drive through the checkpoint and enter the northern part of Cyprus had been refused by the Turkish military authorities.
13.  The applicant alleged that his house in Trypimeni had been used by the Turkish army. The Government disputed this allegation.
7.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Nicosia.
8.  The applicant first stated that he was the owner of a fully furnished house in the District of Kyrenia. However, in his observations of 27 October 1999 he listed his properties as follows:
(a)  Ayios Amvrosios, registration no. 13094, plot no. 33/2, sheet/plan XIII/31.E.1, field with various trees, area: 15,340 sq. m;
(b)  Ayios Amvrosios, registration no. 8648, plot no. 512, sheet/plan XIII/27.E.1&E.2 and XIII/28.W.1&W.2, inaccessible hilly field, area: 19,735 sq. m;
(c)  Ayios Amvrosios, registration no. 4923, plot no. 135, sheet/plan XIII/22.W.1, inaccessible field with olive trees, area: 3,345 sq. m;
(d)  Ayios Amvrosios, registration no. 8277, plot no. 343, sheet/plan XII/27.E.1, field with small former farmhouse and stables, area: 370 sq. m;
(e)  Ayios Amvrosios, registration no. 13131, plot nos. 400 and 401/1, sheet/plan XIII/27.E.1, inaccessible field with nine olive trees, area: 1,254 sq. m.
9.  An expert appointed by the applicant conducted researches in the Famagusta lands registers and obtained the above registration numbers and references. In support of his claim of ownership, the applicant submitted a survey map on which his properties were marked in yellow.
10.  Moreover, in an affidavit of 22 October 1999 the applicant stated that from the time he was born he had lived with his parents in their home in Ayios Amvrosios. When he got married in July 1973 he moved to his wife’s house in Aglandja, a village which had never been occupied by Turkish military forces. After his marriage, the applicant used to spend weekends and holidays in Ayios Amvrosios.
11.  As a result of the 1974 Turkish military intervention the applicant had been deprived of his property rights, his properties being located in the area which was under the occupation and overall control of the Turkish military authorities. The latter had prevented him from having access to and using his property and his parents’ house located in Ayios Amvrosios. Moreover, the applicant stated that his house had been occupied by officers and/or other members of the Turkish military forces.
12.  On 9 December 1990 the applicant made an attempt to return to his property in Ayios Amvrosios by participating in a convoy of cars of fellow refugees from the same district wishing to return home during a peaceful march towards their villages.
13.  The applicant and his fellow refugees, who had informed the Commander of the United Nations (UN) forces in Cyprus of their intention, stopped at the checkpoint in the “buffer zone”, on the main road linking Nicosia with Ayios Amvrosios and Kyrenia. There, they asked the UN officer on duty to be allowed to return to their homes, property and villages. They requested the officer to transmit to the Turkish military authorities their demand to return to their homes. The officer announced to them that the Turkish military authorities had refused their request.
7.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Nicosia.
8.  The applicant stated that he had been living in a house in Kyrenia and was the owner of a field with trees in the village of Ayios Epiktitos. As a result of the 1974 Turkish military intervention he had been deprived of his property rights, his property being located in the area which was under the occupation and the overall control of the Turkish military authorities. The latter had prevented him from having access to and using his house and property. He was being continuously prevented from entering the northern part of Cyprus because of his Greek-Cypriot origin.
9.  The applicant produced two certificates from the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus, stating that he was the legal and registered owner of the following immovable property in the District of Kyrenia:
-  Kyrenia, Ayios Epiktitos, Mevlitoudi, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/25, plot no. 120, surface: hectares 2, decares 2, sq. m 663, share: ¼.
10.  The applicant acquired ownership of this property on 27 June 1990, when it was transferred to him by way of inheritance from his grandfather and a gift from his parents.
11.  On 9 December 1990 the applicant made one further attempt to return to his property in northern Cyprus by participating in a convoy of cars of fellow refugees intending to return home during a peaceful march towards their villages. The applicant and his fellow refugees, who had informed the Commander of the United Nations (UN) forces in Cyprus of their intentions, stopped at the check point in the “buffer zone”, on the main road linking Nicosia with Ayios Amvrosios and Kyrenia. There, they asked the UN officer on duty to be allowed to return to their homes, property and villages. They requested the same officer to forward their demand to the Turkish military authorities. The officer replied that the latter had refused their request.
5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Belgrade.
6.  On 30 June 1988 the Municipality of Voždovac, where the applicant was employed as a clerk, issued a decision leaving the applicant unassigned to a specific post, which ultimately resulted in his dismissal.
7.  On 7 October 1988 the applicant thus filed a suit against the Municipality, seeking reinstatement and salary arrears.
8.  On 24 January 1989 the Labour Court (Osnovni sud udruženog rada) in Belgrade ruled against the applicant, and by 18 May 1989 this decision became final.
9.  The applicant subsequently twice requested the re-opening of the proceedings (podneo predlog za ponavljanje postupka), but to no avail.
10.  On 13 January 1992 the applicant filed a third request of this sort and on 19 March 1996 the Fifth Municipal Court (Peti opštinski sud) in Belgrade (hereinafter “the Municipal Court”), to which the case had been transferred, finally decided to have his case re-opened.
11.  Between 9 October 1997 and February 2004, the Municipal Court obtained four expert reports concerning the exact amount of salary arrears owed to the applicant, as well as the accrued statutory interest.
12.  Following two remittals, on 4 July 2006 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s request for reinstatement, but partly granted his pecuniary claim.
13.  On 27 June 2007 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s reinstatement, but quashed the remainder of the judgment rendered at first instance and ordered a retrial.
14.  On 6 March 2008 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Srbije) rejected the respondent’s appeal on points of law (revizija).
15.  The proceedings before the Municipal Court thereafter continued in respect of the applicant’s pecuniary claim only. Following two additional expert reports which had been provided, on 28 June 2008 the Municipal Court again ruled partly in favour of the applicant.
16.  On 17 July 2008 the respondent Municipality filed an appeal against this judgment. According to the information made available to the Court by the parties to date, the case is apparently still pending before the District Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the vicinity of Prijedor.
5.  Prior to the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”) the applicant deposited foreign currency in his bank accounts at the then Privredna banka Sarajevo Filijala Prijedor. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in other successor States of the former SFRY, such savings are commonly referred to as “old” foreign-currency savings (for the relevant background information see Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-...).
6.  Following several unsuccessful attempts to withdraw his funds, the applicant instituted proceedings, seeking the recovery of his entire “old” foreign-currency savings and accrued interest.
7.  By a decision of the Prijedor Court of First Instance of 4 September 1995 the Prijedorska banka (the legal successor of the Privredna banka Sarajevo Filijala Prijedor) was ordered to pay the applicant 254,725.85 German marks (DEM) and legal costs in the amount of 2,000 dinars (approximately DEM 770 on the date of the judgment). The judgment entered into force on 11 March 1996. On 26 December 1997 the Prijedor Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju).
8.  Although domestic authorities took over the judgment debt, the judgment has not yet been enforced.
7.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Nicosia.
8.  The applicant lived with her family in Kalogrea, a village in the District of Kyrenia. During the 1974 intervention, the Turkish military troops evicted the applicant and her family from their home and forced them to leave Kyrenia and flee to the south.
9.  The applicant alleged that until 7 September 1999, when the properties were transferred to her children, she had been the owner of ten plots of land in Kalogrea, two of which had one house each on them. One of these houses had been the applicant’s home. It was an ancestral house built in 1916, comprising huge, spacious rooms, two bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen and a bathroom. It had two levels and a huge yard. It was built of stone, had marble floors and a titled roof, and wooden doors and windows. The second house was the applicant’s holiday home, built in 1958 and situated in the locality known as Roukania. It had two spacious bedrooms and was very close to the sea (about 50 metres).
10.  In support to her claim to ownership, the applicant produced affirmations of ownership issued by the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus, stating that she was the legal and registered owner of the two houses and of the pieces of lands registered under the plots nos. 260, 268, 45, 119/5, 119/6, 164.9, 121/2/3, 122/2/4, 359/1 and 425.
The applicant also produced certificates of registration for eight of the ten properties at issue.
11.  The applicant claimed that she had been prevented from returning to her home and properties because the Turkish military authorities had continuously occupied and used them.
12.  On 9 December 1990 the applicant made an attempt to return to her home and property in Kyrenia and in the Kalogrea Village by participating in a convoy of cars of fellow refugees intending to return home. The demonstration organisers had informed the Commander of the United Nations (UN) forces in Cyprus of their intentions.
13.  The applicant and her fellow refugees stopped at the check point in the "buffer zone", on the main road linking Nicosia and Famagusta. There, they asked the UN officer on duty to be allowed to return to their homes, property and villages. They requested the same officer to forward their demand to the Turkish military authorities. The officer replied that the latter had refused their request.
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Klin, a town in the Moscow Region.
5.  At the material time the applicant was a captain of the Army. His unit was stationed in Vatutinki-1 near Moscow.
6.  In 2000 the applicant requested an early discharge for health reasons. Under domestic law, long-serving servicemen in need of better housing (the applicant met these conditions) could be discharged against their will only if the command provided them with such housing. When asking for discharge, the applicant specified that he wished to receive the housing.
7.  On 14 December 2000 the command offered the applicant a flat in Vatutinki-1, but he rejected this offer and sued his command.
8.  On 13 February 2001 the Moscow Garrison Military Court ordered the command to provide the applicant’s family with housing at his place of duty without specifying the exact location. In addition, the court ordered to discharge the applicant, to pay outstanding service-related benefits, to pay 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of legal costs, and to pay RUB 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. This judgment became binding on 16 March 2001 and was enforced as follows.
9.  On 26 March 2001 the command offered the applicant a flat in Krasnogorsk, but he rejected this offer.
10.  On April 2001 the applicant was discharged from active duty but was retained on the roster pending the provision of the housing. In April 2001 the command paid the benefits. In May 2001 the command paid the costs and damages.
11.  On 21 November 2001 the command offered the applicant a flat in Domodedovo, but he rejected this offer.
12.  On 21 March 2002 the command offered the applicant a flat in Zelenograd, and he accepted this offer. However, higher authorities in the Ministry of Defence found that the offered flat was too big for the applicant’s family, because his wife and son had another flat. In 2002–03 courts upheld this decision.
13.  On 2 June 2004 the command offered the applicant a flat in Moscow. On 25 February 2005 the applicant accepted this offer. On 5 May 2005 city authorities invited the applicant to formalise his ownership, but he avoided this procedure because he considered the flat too small. He sued his command, and on 18 October 2005 the Moscow Garrison Military Court found that the flat in Moscow met the conditions of the judgment of 13 February 2001.
14.  On 5 December 2005 the applicant was removed from the roster.
15.  In September 2006 the applicant agreed to formalise his ownership of the flat in Moscow and moved in.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Narva.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 19 October 1999 AS Eesti Maapank, a public limited company, lodged a claim for nearly four million kroons (EEK – corresponding approximately to 255,000 euros (EUR)) against the applicant with the Narva City Court (linnakohus). The claim concerned an alleged loan the applicant had failed to pay back.
7.  On 14 December 2000 AS Eesti Maapank applied for interlocutory measures. On 15 December 2000 the City Court granted the plaintiff’s request and attached the applicant’s property (four properties and four vehicles). The parties did not appeal against the decision.
8.  However, on 2 January 2001 the applicant requested the City Court to revoke the attachment in respect of one house because it had already been mortgaged to a bank. On 19 January 2001 the City Court revoked the attachment in so far as requested.
9.  On 23 October 2001 the Viru Court of Appeal (ringkonnakohus), on an appeal by the plaintiff, quashed the partial revocation of the attachment as it had been done without a valid legal ground.
10.  On 27 February 2003 the plaintiff requested the City Court to speed up the proceedings.
11.  In a letter of 27 October 2003 the City Court explained to the parties that in order to speed up the proceedings it was possible, by mutual agreement between the parties, to transfer jurisdiction to a different court. The court received no reply from the parties.
12.  In the applicant’s submission, he had been ready, at some stage of the proceedings, to transfer jurisdiction so that the Tallinn City Court would have tried the case. However, the plaintiff had not agreed.
13.  On 12 July 2004 the Narva City Court transmitted the statement of claims to the applicant for comment. On 6 August 2004 the applicant informed the court that he did not acknowledge the claim.
14.  By a decision of 1 April 2005 the City Court replaced AS Eesti Maapank as plaintiff by OÜ Trenton Invest, a private limited company, since the latter had agreed to take over the claim against the applicant.
15.  On 18 May 2005 a preliminary hearing before the City Court took place. The court adjourned the hearing in order that the plaintiff could submit originals of certain documents and that an expert opinion could be obtained in respect of the genuineness of the applicant’s signature on the documents. The plaintiff submitted the documents to the court on 25 May 2005. Subsequently, at the applicant’s request, the court required certain additional documents from the plaintiff, which the latter was unable to provide.
16.  In April 2006 the applicant became aware that the court had not sent the documents to an expert.
17.  On 16 May 2006 the applicant and OÜ Trenton Invest concluded a compromise agreement. The applicant undertook to pay a sum of EEK 450,000 (approximately EUR 29,000) to the plaintiff to settle the case.
18.  On 29 May 2006 the Viru County Court (maakohus) – the successor of the Narva City Court – approved the settlement.
19.  On 21 July 2006 the County Court annulled the interlocutory measure applied on 15 December 2000.
6.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Vlore.
7.  On 30 January 1995 the Lushnjë District Court recognised the existence of the applicant’s father’s property rights over a plot of land measuring 576 sq. m. situated in the city of Lushnjë (vendim për vërtetim fakti). The decision became binding and final on 13 February 1995.
8.  The applicant, pursuant to the Property Restitution and Compensation Act (hereinafter “the Property Act”), lodged a request with the Lushnjë Commission on Property Restitution and Compensation (hereinafter “the Commission”) seeking restitution of the original property.
9.  By a decision of 21 March 1996 the Commission upheld the property rights of the applicant and the other five heirs of her father over the plot of land measuring 576 sq. m situated in the city of Lushnjë. On the basis of the documents in its possession the Commission held that restitution of the original property was impossible since it was occupied. Accordingly, the Commission decided that the applicant was to be compensated in kind or in the form of State bonds pursuant to section 16 of the Property Act. The Commission ordered the district authorities to take the necessary measures in order to enforce its decision.
10.  In 2004, following the failure of the authorities to enforce the Commission decision, the applicant requested the district authorities to decide on the amount of compensation to be awarded to her in respect of her property.
11.  The authorities have still not complied with their obligation.